---
name: jm-theory-development
description: Use when building the conceptual logic for a Journal of Marketing (JM) manuscript — grounding theory in a real-world marketing phenomenon, deriving predictions, and accommodating an empirics-first route. Builds the argument; it does not select the question (jm-topic-selection) or run the analysis (jm-data-analysis).
---

# Theory Development, Phenomenon-First (jm-theory-development)

## When to trigger

- The phenomenon and question are set; you need a defensible conceptual argument
- Reviewers will ask "why does this happen?" and "what is the mechanism?"
- You have a strong empirical pattern but no organizing logic (empirics-first)
- You are tempted to bolt a generic theory onto a marketing finding

## JM's theory stance: serve the substantive question

Unlike theory-first flagships, JM does not reward theoretical machinery for its own sake. Its bar is **substantive insight into a real marketing question**. Theory in a JM paper earns its place by **explaining a consequential marketing phenomenon** and yielding predictions that, when tested, change how managers, policy makers, or society understand the market. The new editorial "Big Ideas" platform explicitly pushes back on complexity that crowds out topic importance (待核实 — editorial paywalled), so build the *minimum sufficient* conceptual structure that makes the phenomenon intelligible and the predictions sharp.

## Two legitimate routes into JM

1. **Theory-first**: a clear mechanism generates predictions, then data test them. Standard, accepted.
2. **Empirics-first**: a robust, surprising real-world pattern leads, and the conceptual account is developed to explain *why* it occurs. JM actively solicits empirics-first work (dedicated special issue and editorials) grounded in real-world phenomena. This is encouraged here in a way that is unusual among top journals — but the pattern must still be explained, not merely reported.

Decide which route you are on and signal it honestly; do not disguise an empirics-first paper as theory-first (a HARKing risk).

## Build the conceptual logic

- **Anchor in the phenomenon**: state the marketing fact the theory must explain (e.g., why a pricing, advertising, channel, or brand move produces an unexpected market response).
- **Specify the mechanism**: the process linking marketing action/condition to the consequential outcome. Name boundary conditions (when it holds, when it reverses).
- **Derive predictions** at the level you can measure (consumer, segment, brand, firm, market) and that map to outcomes managers/policy makers care about.
- **Moderation/mediation**: predict the *process* and the *contingencies*, not just a main effect, so the substantive story is mechanism-rich.
- **Managerial logic**: carry the implication through — if the mechanism holds, what should a decision maker do differently?

## Checklist

- [ ] The phenomenon the theory must explain is stated explicitly
- [ ] Route declared (theory-first vs. empirics-first) and handled honestly
- [ ] Mechanism named, with boundary conditions
- [ ] Predictions at a measurable level, tied to consequential outcomes
- [ ] Moderators/mediators predicted, not just a main effect
- [ ] Managerial/policy/societal implication of the mechanism articulated
- [ ] Conceptual structure is as simple as the substantive insight allows

## Anti-patterns

- **Theory theater**: elaborate framework that adds no substantive insight.
- **HARKing**: presenting post-hoc explanations of an empirics-first pattern as a priori theory.
- **Main-effect-only logic**: no mechanism, no contingencies.
- **Borrowed-theory veneer**: a generic psychological/economic theory pasted on without fit to the marketing phenomenon.
- **Mechanism with no managerial consequence**: process that no decision maker can act on.

## Output format

```
【Phenomenon to explain】[...]
【Route】theory-first / empirics-first (declared honestly)
【Mechanism】[...]; boundary conditions: [...]
【Predictions】H1...Hk at level [...] → outcome [...]
【Process / contingencies】mediators: [...]; moderators: [...]
【Managerial logic】if mechanism holds → decision maker should [...]
【Next step】jm-literature-positioning
```